Election 2004: The “Make Us Safe” believers, Enabling their own March into Fascism

2000, the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney syndicate seized the presidency of the United States, and world power, in an act of open and brazen criminality. Experienced followers of this cabal sounded the alarm, warning of the carnage that was certain to come. We warned that the failure to resist every act and manifestation of this coup would hasten the death of a crippled American republic. Few listened.

When the Bush regime delivered the atrocity of 9/11, and the “war on terrorism,” the majority of Americans—shocked out of what little remained of their critical faculties—marched to Bush’s drumbeat, into the abyss.

Now, four years and a raging world war later, it is “anybody but Bush” season, full of hope for salvation, courtesy of a John Kerry presidency. It has become popular to ridicule the demented Bush for his embarrassing behavior , and excoriate the administration for its lies about the Iraq war and occupation. The scandalized and cornered Bush administration is taking heat, even from its own officials, the CIA, weapons inspectors, and “friends” such as Brent Scowcroft.

Echoing the neoliberal parameters laid out by Kerry and the Democratic Leadership Council, galvanized voters are shouting from the rooftops about “no WMD,” “misguided rush to war,” the “mismanagement” of the occupation, “international ill will,” “unilateral blunder,” and the “needless deaths of young American men and women.”

Is America “back”? A resounding no.

The “war on terrorism” fraud reigns supreme in the American psyche, blocking out all reason. Fear and anxiety over a “coming terror attack”—”who will make us safe?”— pervades every facet of American life.

Pathologically unable (or unwilling) to break free of the fear-based indoctrination that came with the “shock effect” of 9/11, even today’s most strident “anti-war” Kerry supporters refuse to question the “war on terrorism” lie that preceded it—the central lie that made the Iraq war possible—thus fully enabling Washington’s continuing war crimes.

This poison is the most lasting legacy of this Bush administration.

9/11 Was Home-Grown, Stupid

To this day, many still believe that 9/11 was a foreign terror attack, despite the exhaustive and still growing body of evidence that the Bush administration and its functionaries orchestrated, facilitated, and carried out the operation that killed 3,000 civilians on American soil. The fabrications of the Bush administration, and the cover-up of the 9/11 Independent Commission , are accepted as fact.

“This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets, the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges, the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged “enemy combatants”, etc.”

The very existence of al Qaeda constitutes the justification for a preemptive war against rogue states and terrorist organizations. It is part of the indoctrination of US troops fighting in the Middle East. It is also being used to justify the so-called abuse of POWs .

No al Qaeda, no war on terrorism. No rogue states which sponsor al Qaeda, no pretext for waging war. No justification for invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. No justification for sending in US Special Forces into numerous countries around the world.”

Al Qaeda is the creation of the CIA . The Osama bin Laden group has been nourished and guided since the Carter administration, and has been continuously utilized as US military-intelligence assets ever since. These compartmentalized cells are guided by the CIA, and its foreign fronts, such as Pakistan’s ISI. “Terrorists” are controlled and manipulated for real or propagandistic purposes. (For an example of recent propaganda, see “Zarqawi: Bush’s Man for all Seasons” )

“To date, the case that 9/11 was perpetrated solely by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda has never been proved, even to the most rudimentary standards. In fact, some 35 months after the attacks, there has not been a single successful 9/11 prosecution anywhere in the world.

“The entire continuum of public and private life in the United States has been transformed by 9/11, the lengthy preparations for it, the ensuing cover-up, and the massive consolidation of authoritarian policies and institution achieved in its wake. In short, I maintain that unless this phenomenon is exposed at its roots, the fundamental changes it has wrought will become permanent. That would constitute the death of the American republic.”

An overwhelming and still-growing body of evidence collected over the past three years proves that “the United States government not only had complete foreknowledge of the attacks of September 11, it also needed them and deliberately facilitated them, and even helped plan and execute them using techniques long understood in the world of covert operations.”

These include (and are not limited to) the guiding of compartmentalized intelligence assets and proprietaries, the nurturing and perpetuation of “terrorist legends,” massive corporate media disinformation, and provocative covert operations designed to create “real” terrorist incidents, leading to cycles of retaliation, and then outright military invasion.

The “war on terrorism” is a lie. The 9/11 legend is a lie.

To be a “keep America safe” Kerrycrat is to continue to believe in propaganda, disinformation, and myth as fervently as a Bush neocon.

Which President Will Kill More “Terrorists”?

Both Bush and Kerry have gone to great lengths to perpetuate the “terrorism” and 9/11 illusions. Both are stoking mass fear.

The 2004 campaign has been a referendum on who will be the more brutal “killer.” To again quote Michel Chossudovsky :

“As the election campaign unfolds, the ‘war on terrorism’ has become the main if not the sole election issue. Ironically, Osama bin Laden has become a central figure of the election debate.

“’Whatever it takes,’ . . . said President Bush: ‘[We will] fight the terrorists across the Earth, not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake.’

“Senator Kerry has promised to do even better: ‘As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.’

“In other words, the tragic events of 9/11 are being used by both political parties to galvanize public opinion in support of America’s war agenda.

“Across the land, the image of an ‘outside enemy’ is instilled in the consciousness of Americans. Al Qaeda is threatening America and the world. The repeal of democracy under the Patriot legislation is portrayed as a means to providing ‘domestic security’ and upholding civil liberties.

This evolving bipartisan consensus is based on a lie. Confirmed by congressional transcripts, intelligence and news reports, this illusive outside enemy is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. The enemy of America is ‘Made in America.’ This is an inescapable fact.”

Scary Movie Redux

As I write this, yet another “Osama Bin Laden” propaganda videotape has hit the world’s airwaves, sending both Bush and Kerry camps scrambling and spinning, and the public reacting in Pavlovian fashion.

It is telling that Bush and Kerry issued venomous statements reminiscent of a professional wrestling tag-team.

Kerry said: “They are barbarians, and I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture or kill the terrorists wherever they are, whatever it takes, period.”

Bush: “I’m sure Senator Kerry agrees with this. We are at war with these terrorists, and I am confident that we will prevail.”

As has been the case with virtually every lurid “terror tape” in the past three years, there has been no credible (unbiased) analysis regarding the authenticity and origin of this new tape, which could be another fabrication by an intelligence agency or political/media operation. As Chossudovsky has noted on the various “terror” warnings, “nobody seems to have questioned the source of these warnings emanating from an intelligence apparatus, which is known to have supported al Qaeda throughout the entire post cold War era.”

“It is impossible to know whether we should take anything bin Laden says at face value, but this comment on the timing of the attacks is interesting. While the timing of the broadcast makes it clear that Osama is playing right into Bush’s election campaign by reminding Americans of why they instinctively look to Bush for security from the likes of bin Laden, the sly attack on Bush’s goat book reading leaves enough ambiguity that Bush can argue that bin Laden is actually campaigning for Kerry, thus further increasing the value of bin Laden’s words for Bush.

“Brilliant. Bin Laden continues to earn his pay.”

The Kerry Tease

It is tempting for opponents of Bush to believe in the articulate, intelligent and “presidential” John Kerry, and hard not to enjoy watching Kerry demolish and humiliate George W. Bush in three presidential debates.

It appears that a Kerry-led neoliberal presidency would offer improvement over the callous Bush in terms of some domestic issues, and perhaps some lip service to “adjustments” to the USA PATRIOT Act.

But ultimately the Kerry-Edwards agenda must be judged on the issues that dwarf all the rest—war, “terrorism,” 9/11, and Peak Oil. On all three, Kerry-Edwards is as horrific as Bush-Cheney.

Kerry has only opposed the unilateral, brutal and “too obvious” process and manner by which the Bush faction took Iraq, and its 11 percent of world oil reserves. Rhetoric has revolved around Bush’s failure to come up with a better, more “effective,” and less “costly” way to quell resistance to occupation.

Under Kerry, Iraq “counter-insurgency,” and future wars in key resource and geostrategic spots (Iran, North Korea, West Africa, Latin America) would be “nuanced” multinational interventions based on “consensus,” justified by better diplomatic language (similar to the Clinton administration rampage in Kosovo)—designed to sell better, in the United States as well as across the world, with less resistance (even from local victims of invaded and occupied nations).

Conservative William Safire made a strong case that Kerry is as hawkish as the neocons. Kerry enthusiastically supports the use of pre-emptive strikes . His call for “increased use of Special Forces” guarantees an increase in covert operations and defense/intelligence spending, while his plan for more National Guard operations in the USA deepens the American police state.

It is important to note how Bush twice denounced the International Criminal Court, shouting about how he would “never let Americans be tried,” and Kerry did not to respond to either statement. And in the vice presidential debate, John Edwards virtually leaped out of his chair to militantly support Israel (without a word regarding Palestine).

Neither Bush nor Kerry campaigns address Peak Oil.

Where the brutal Bush-Cheney was “bad for business,” Kerry team would also be a more responsible steward, restoring Trilateralism, and promising a smoother, steadier march across the Grand Chessboard.

With bitter irony comes word that the Kerry-Edwards campaign has received funding from operatives of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) . As documented by congressional testimony, in the 1990s, the KLA received funding and training, and fought with al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden, on behalf of the CIA.

Here we go again.

Quagmire and Grief

As the Iraq death toll passes the 1,000th American military death, and at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths, American soldiers—ordered to kill and die—and Iraqis alike remain trapped in the wheels of brutal imperial agendas, killing each other. For oil . For lies. For no good reason.

Thanks to escalating US provocations, the line between “terrorism” and national resistance (“freedom fighting”) is irrevocably blurred. The neocons want it that way. Perhaps the neoliberals do as well.

Already Stolen?

In Mike Ruppert’s incisive take on the 2004 election, “Beyond Bush II” , he wrote:

“It still remains unclear whether or not Bush will lose the 2004 election, steal it again, or be replaced via an impeachment effort after a win. There is a great deal to be learned from the Democratic Party side of the equation, and voters who eagerly participate in the election process are almost pathologically in denial about the compromise of the process that has occurred with proprietary electronic software that remains easily manipulated and immune from public scrutiny. As the 2000 election was stolen, the 2004 election may already be locked up (or encoded).”

Indeed, vote manipulation, irregularities, intimidation and fraud have already exploded in states across the US. As tracked by Bev Harris of Black Box Voting , some 80 percent of new voting machines have not been tested, or have malfunctioned. Walden O’Dell of Diebold

has promised to “deliver votes” for Bush. Florida’s computers are already rigged for Bush . Worse, national elections are centrally tabulated, a long-time dirty secret. It is possible that the Associated Press , solely in charge of the final vote count, could easily give the contest to Bush.

Ruppert writes: “Perhaps the best way to understand what is beyond George W. Bush is to fully appreciate that what came before him was part of the same agenda as what will follow him. Nothing has been done to change that.”

The winner of the election will not be Bush or Kerry. It is fear, and its running mates, ignorance and false hope.

“When people across the US and around the World find out that al Qaeda is not an outside enemy but a creation of US foreign policy and the CIA, the legitimacy of the Bush administration will tumble like a deck of cards. In other words, when the lies emanating from the seat of political authority are fully revealed, the perceived enemy will no longer be al Qaeda but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al.”

“Bear in mind that the Democrats are also complicit. Democratic administrations have also supported al Qaeda.

“This relationship of successive US administrations to international terrorism, which is a matter of public record, indelibly points to the criminalization of the upper echelons of US state apparatus.”

When will people understand this? Will they ever?

Nothing less than the arrest, prosecution and punishment of the world’s war criminals—starting with those who occupy the highest offices of the US government—and a complete overhaul of the global political and economic system, will turn the tide. That can only begin when America cleans house.

Regardless of the results of the 2004 election, as long as “war on terrorism”/”make us safe” indoctrination persists, war will not end—and criminal warmongers like Bush are empowered.

In his infamous book, The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that the American public

“supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,” and that in order to “fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,” a “truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat” would need to be manufactured. He also listed three imperatives of imperial geostrategy: “to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”

In the United States, all of these conditions persist, and the “consensus” remains unopposed. The well has been poisoned. The multitudes are drinking from it.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the
copyright owner.